Spoiler, there's an incredible degree of ignorance and bias. It's a fine example of someone widely regarded as "smart" being a Dawkins level of asshole. It's an odd variation of SGITR, I think. Something like because people have assigned them a status as "smart" or "able to argue passably well" becomes a de-facto authority on things that they're wildly uniformed of.

It looks to me like we're shifting into a strange time when experts in their respective fields are trusted far less than before. Rather than discuss the matter with related experts, there's a tendency to grab the nearest sack of skin that others have deemed "smart" and treat them like an oracle.

For instance, Farage. A "man" who's factual statements on Europe I wouldn't trust and this is arguably his field of expertise. Yet with a quick google I can learn his opinion all sorts of things about the world which are demonstrably false. The important point to note here is that someone has bothered to spend the time asking the questions and making the answers available.

There's trump, and little needs to be said here. In the past 18 months he's been asked nearly everything you can imagine and been found wanting in the extreme. But somehow, he's now the ultimate SGITR. A man that couldn't even understand basic questions about US nuclear arms is soon to be in charge of them.

Little too, needs to be said of Harris. Very smart in a very limited capacity but fond of making idiot statements on a whole range of things. It's not a bad thing to not know something or perhaps need a concept explained to you. Yet when was the last time you remember anyone asking for clarification of a topic or term in an interview? The Allepo guy? Notice now infrequent it is? He was rightly crucified for it but it's the only off-hand example I can think of where the urge to be seen as all-knowing just wasn't there.

It seems like a lot of people have all the answers nowadays and not one of those answers is "Fucked if I know." This is also the only answer that should be given to 99% of the questions these people are asked.

Anyway, we're going to see a lot more people saying a lot more stupid things in the foreseeable future. If you need to boost your blood pressure, this will probably be an easy place to do it.

Logged

Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.

It's an odd variation of SGITR, I think. Something like because people have assigned them a status as "smart" or "able to argue passably well" becomes a de-facto authority on things that they're wildly uniformed of.

Coincidentally, they had a word for this on an episode of The Skeptics Guide that I've just listened to. It's maybe a bit unwieldy to use in regular conversation but it exists.

There is a set of tools you can use to tear down an argument with which you disagree, and it is a much more civilized approach than simply calling someone the Smartest Guy in the Room in obvious sarcasm.

The downside of using such tools, of course, is that someone else will eventually call you the Smartest Guy in the Room in obvious sarcasm.

It all depends on how you prefer to argue, and who you choose to argue with. (The latter is something I'm personally not qualified to give advice on.)

Neither is the former.

Standing request, can this and further posts from this tool get split elsewhere? I'd rather not shit up this thread with nonsense, he's already got enough of them on the go for that.

And as I'm apparently off ignore, hey guy, fuck you and fuck off.

Logged

Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.

It's an odd variation of SGITR, I think. Something like because people have assigned them a status as "smart" or "able to argue passably well" becomes a de-facto authority on things that they're wildly uniformed of.

Coincidentally, they had a word for this on an episode of The Skeptics Guide that I've just listened to. It's maybe a bit unwieldy to use in regular conversation but it exists.

There is a set of tools you can use to tear down an argument with which you disagree, and it is a much more civilized approach than simply calling someone the Smartest Guy in the Room in obvious sarcasm.

The downside of using such tools, of course, is that someone else will eventually call you the Smartest Guy in the Room in obvious sarcasm.

It all depends on how you prefer to argue, and who you choose to argue with. (The latter is something I'm personally not qualified to give advice on.)

Neither is the former.

Standing request, can this and further posts from this tool get split elsewhere? I'd rather not shit up this thread with nonsense, he's already got enough of them on the go for that.

And as I'm apparently off ignore, hey guy, fuck you and fuck off.

Done.

Logged

" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."- TGRR, raising the bar at work.